Saturday, July 07, 2007

Al Gore's Live Earth Promotes Conservation By Burning Up Fossil Fuels And Creating More Garbage And Waste For Landfills

In order to promote a cleaner environment, less pollution, reducing carbon emissions - Albert Gore, Junior's Live Earth Aid concerts will release enormous amounts of pollution and contribute a carbon footprint astronomical in its size.

Junior Gore's massive propaganda campaign and political commercial includes the following fossil fuel burning and polluting Fun Facts from the trustworthy The Daily Mail: (emphasis mine)

222,623.63 miles between [the celebs appearing] at the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions

1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.

"An event of this size at Wembley [...] will generate around 59 tonnes of waste."

The Daily Mail (that would be not Fox Newsfor you uber-Liberals) story continues:

nine concerts played over 24 hours across seven continents before an audience of two billion.

For Louise...ahem, I mean "Madonna":

For her 2006 World Tour, she flew by private jet, transporting a team of up to 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. Waiting in the garage at home, she has a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S.

[...]

The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: "a massive, hypocritical fraud".

For while the organisers' commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale.Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it 'private jets for climate change'.

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

[...]

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

Moreover, the pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote - with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world.

Sepermodel Kate Moss, another profligate polluter through her use of private jets, is producing a T-shirt for the event. Yet, Gore is touting the concerts as 'carbon neutral'. So how can that be?

Let us start with some facts. Worldwide, an audience of around 1,268,500 is expected to attend the concerts - making it one of the largest global events in history.

Dr Andrea Collins, an expert in sustainability from Cardiff University, has researched the impact of such mass gatherings on the environment.

"An event of this size at Wembley - which holds 65,000 at a rock concert, will generate around 59 tonnes of waste," she says. "That is largely composed of the rubbish from food and drink consumption."

She found that a Wembley-sized football match generated an 'ecological footprint' of 3,000 global hectares - an area the size of 4,166 football pitches. This is the amount of bioproductive land required to absorb the C02 emissions produced by such an event.

[...]

Dr Collins estimates that the global audience for Live Earth will generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste. An extraordinary one million people are expected at the free concert at Rio de Janeiro's Copacabana beach, featuring Lenny Kravitz, Macy Gray and Pharrell Williams.

Other venues including the Coca-Cola Dome in Johannesburg - where Joss Stone is performing - will cater for audiences of tens of thousands.

Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.

A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced - the rest will go into landfill sites.

Travel forms the vast majority of the 'carbon footprint' talked of by ecological campaigners - contributing up to 90 per cent of the environmental 'cost'.

Collins says: "It is patently absurd to claim that travel of this nature doesn't have an impact. Each person attending the event will have to make a return journey to the venue, be it by air, rail, bus or car. This burns fossil fuel - precisely what we are trying to reduce.

"There is also the environmental cost of these artists flying around the world - that is absolutely huge."

Indeed, an audit of the lifestyles of the A-list performers appearing at Live Earth, reveals that they are among the worst individual polluters in the world, as their world tours and private jets billow thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.

The Daily Mail has found that five of the top performing acts together have an annual output of almost 2,000 carbon tonnes. Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tonnes, according to John Buckley.

Remember, the average Briton produces just ten tonnes.

The veteran pop singer's Confessions tour last year produced 440 tonnes of carbon pollution in just four months, simply in flights between venues. This does not include the trucks required to transport equipment, the power needed to stage each show, or the transport for fans travelling to each concert.

Rock group Genesis re-formed last year and are in the middle of their European tour. The three-man band will fit their Live Earth performance into a tour of at least 47 locations across the world.

Their carbon footprint last year totalled 195 tonnes.

James Blunt, another Wembley performer, completed his world tour of the U.S. last year, racking up a carbon footprint of 195 tonnes.

American band Red Hot Chili Peppers have, like Madonna, flown in to Wembley from the U.S.. They have produced 220 tonnes of carbon dioxide with their private jet alone over the last six months.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has learnt that Bon Jovi left the UK this week to travel back by private jet to the U.S. to perform at the New York stadium for the American leg of Live Earth.

Music impresario Andrew Lloyd Webber's ex-wife Sarah Brightman is being flown out to sing at the Shanghai concert in China. This is a distance of 5,679.95 miles, producing one tonne of carbon dioxide pollution.

Two other acts have already been criticised for being paid to promote fuel-guzzling cars. John Legend is featured in a Lexus advert, while Sheryl Crow's hit Everyday Is A Winding Road is used to sell Subaru 4WDs.

[...]

Razorlight frontman Johnny Borrell has been criticised for urging people to drive electric eco-scooters - but buying a 1,000cc Moto Guzzi bike - described as 'a monster-revving beast'.

[...]

Radiohead, who are pioneers in eco-friendly performing, have refused to appear.

[...]

Andrea Robinson, Live Earth's green manager, says her message to celebrities is: "Leave the Learjet at home - fly commercial."

[...]

The Aussie Stadium in Sydney will run the event on 100 per cent green energy supply. Each Australian Live Earth ticket comes with a free public transport voucher, while all the bathrooms will be waterless with waste being composted into fertiliser.

Conversely, in New York's Giants Stadium, trade unions have blocked Live Earth's attempts to recycle, and the 52,000-seater arena is not situated near public transport. The smallest - and least polluting - concert will be held at the British Antarctic Survey's base in Rothera.

Bizarrely, the concerts are also being 'independently audited' by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers over the next seven weeks, to assess the level of pollution they will have generated.

[...]

critics say that the practice is simply a way for consumerist industries and nations to export their responsibility to developing countries. Others say it simply does not work.

Carbon-offsetting is, it turns out, how celebrities square green issues with their extravagant lifestyles and use of private jets.

Jon Bon Jovi has said: "We wrote a cheque, we took care of our footprint and raised awareness, blah blah blah." [such a lyricist that JBJ is - huh? - D.D.]

[...]

Pictured Above: Big Green Al

John Rego, the environmental director of Live Earth, says he expects to purchase at least 3,000 tonnes of carbon credits to off-set the event. It is believed the organisers will spend in excess of £1million on carbon offsetting to counter criticism.

Rego explains: "All the events are carbon neutral. We have chosen a reforestation and reagricultural project in Mozambique. It is a credible certifiable carbon-diffused project. We are in the process of purchasing a carbon offset."

Dr Collins says: "Taking a flight and planting a tree does not add up. It does not make it all right. It is having your cake and eating it."

Dr John Barrett, from the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York, says: "There is a huge irony in flying halfway across the globe in a private jet, eating up fossil fuel."The idea that you can offset the pollution you cause is just ridiculous. What these people at Live Earth have done is defined their boundaries to suit themselves, but there is no sense in which this concert is carbon neutral.

"Planting trees or investing in renewable energy does not reverse the damage of releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the environment.

"It is far better not to pollute in the first place. Carbon offsetting can be a removal of guilt, but it is not an effective one."

Live Earth is encouraging 'citizens of the world' to take small steps: share a car, plant a shrub, turn off a light or hang out washing rather than use a dryer.

But Dr Barrett says: "It would be far better for these celebrities to stay at home. Holding large concerts to highlight environmental concerns and cut carbon emissions just seems ridiculous. What planet do these people live on?"

Oh, Dr. Barrett, they live and are from the planet of "Do What I Say, Not As I Do" which is located far, far away in the Liberal Utopia Galaxy. It's a planet where uber-Liberals know everything, having the answer or solution for everything. They're unable to learn anything new because they automatically possess the perfect and appropriate response to everything. Should something not go exactly as they planned, surely it is the fault of someone or something else. They are perfect, flawless and to be put upon a pedestal, worshipping them as we cheerfully submit to them, permitting them to completely lord over us, their motives and objective never to be questioned or second-guessed.

Most importantly, this Live Earth is one, gargantuan free political advertisement for Al Gore, Jr. For President. I think all other political candidates - Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc - should all receive equal time under a renewed Fairness Doctrine. Let's get Harry Reid and Nanny Pelosi on this right away.

Al Gore as the rectal thermometer of the world. You have outdone yourself with this one my friend. I am still laughing as I write this. I think this has the potential to become the #1 screen saver for the global warming bowel movement.

You raise very good points that they could have done the events locally and spared the environmental impact of travel. And somehow if they got everyone that was going to the performances to sit at home with the lights and TV off, now that would have sent a message to the world that no one would have heard! But you've got to figure all those people eating at the stadiums would have just eaten somewhere else that day, and everyone watching TV would have just been watching something else that day, and the performers would have been flying to some other event that day. That the event has an large impact is certainly true and an excellent point, but I think you overestimate the impact by assuming that all these folks wouldn't have been doing anything if they hadn't attended or watched Live Earth. And for sure this was a campaign of propaganda but if you want to influence the public opinion and resulting policy and politics of the world, then maybe you can suggest a less hypocritical way to get that message across. But maybe I miss your point, if you suggest global warming isn't happening, or that it has no impact - then what do you suppose is happening? Do you think those thousands of people around the globe measuring temperatures for the past 100 years all just made it all up? There really aren't glaciers melting? And the well documented disruption of ecosystems won't have any impact on us. If that was the point of your photoshopped tirade against Green Al then I'd love to hear how you explain it.

I'm not exactly sure what to say right now, because apparently logic and common sense weren't things you were born with, and someone neglected to teach you.

Let me ask you something, Do you think gravity is real? Or is that something the 'uber-liberals' (wtf?) made up because they were mad about not being able to fly?

I have to ask myself, were you dropped on your head??

The idea that the massive warming period we've been experiencing over the last half century is due to the sun isn't merely wrong, it's outright idiocy!! Now, the sun could change the climate yes, but we know it isn't because other things would change too, like the orbit of the earth (365.25 days in the same elipsis) or the size of the sun (would actually shrink), or the intensity of the energy it emits (constant as ever). As a civilization, we have known since the mid 1800s that burning fossil fuels will increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere above the natural average of 220 ppm. And since the 1800s, we've known that an increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will intensify the greenhouse effect, globally warming the earth.

Of course, the CO2 in the atmosphere has changed in the past, so of course, you say, "How do we know this warming isn't the same thing as before?" Well that's because the things that caused those periods of warming (changes in the earth's orbit, huge releases of undersea methane deposits, gas from volcanoes) aren't happening now, and the only thing that could be causing this catasrophe is our burning of fossil fuels. So wherever you got your science because it's wrong, check the source and whether or not they work for Exxon-Mobile.

You also say that the politicalization of the issue "by the left" is shameful. First of all the "left" aren't the only ones who have taken notice of this issue politically, there are plenty of republicans who have stepped up to take responsibility for this problem and help find a solution. But why are you acting like bringing this into political standing is a bad thing? In reality, it is one of the best and most important things we can do to solve this problem.

You also said that the average Briton produces jsut ten tons. That is one of the most misleading satements I've ever heard.You make it sound like 10 is something to be proud of, well actually it sucks. I live in Boulder CO, and the average here is 7.5 tons, WHICH IS @#$@#ING AWFUL!!! Your data is not only wrong, but it is misleading to the maximum.

It's also strange that you challenge the idea of the concert being carbon neutral, since it was. All the carbon was offset. Now, this isn't the best way to go about things normally, but given the situation, it was definetlly the best choice.

You also seem to have a personnal vendetta against Gore. Now, either you just don't like him, or (I'm speculating) you're one of the people who see this a just a big propaganda parade to get him elected, well fyi, GORE ISN'T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, SO SHUT UP ABOUT IT ALREADY!!! (That was for everyone else out there, not just you David). Maybe he is just doing this because he is a good person and doesn't want to see the entire world go to shit!

That's why I got involved with The Climate Project (www.theclimateproject.org) and because of my age I was invited to speak at Live Earth in NJ. Did you go to Live Earth? If you did, of if you even watched it, then you would've seen the impact on the people there. They were happy, they were joyful, but most of all, they were hopeful. They were hopeful that the rest of the world, including people like you, would see that this is bigger than we are. This is bigger than the entire human race. This is the single greatest threat that not only humanity has ever faced, but that the planet has ever encountered. We need to answer for what we've done, what we know we've done, what we've proven beyond all doubt we've done. We need to fix this, and if we don't, then the world, and all life within it, will slowly die.

You may not think that the planet is valuable enough to fight for, but you're not the only one who lives here.

Life itself, not just for you or me, but for the entire world is at stake, at it is worth saving.

Actually that statement is from the Daily Mail story that I linked to. Did you bother to read the linked story? Probably not. I just checked the link, the story is still there, it's up - nope. You didn't even read it.

It's also the Daily Mail STORY reporting on the tons of garbage created by those who attended the Live Earth Aid FARCE.

It's sad that you can't make your point without resorting to personal attacks. Is that what they teach you in Global Warming Alarmist School?

that's because the things that caused those periods of warming (changes in the earth's orbit, huge releases of undersea methane deposits, gas from volcanoes) aren't happening now.

Really? The Earth's orbit is no longer changing? There's no more releases of methane from the oceans? Vocanic eruptions aren't happening any more?

Kilauea in Hawaii is.

Nevado Del Huila in Columbia is.

Mariana Islands report lowered volcanic activity.

Papua New Guinea is active.

So you "got" invited to Live Earth? You can't even use proper grammar, the kind taught in elementary school.

This is the single greatest threat that not only humanity has ever faced,.

No, it isn't. Not by a long shot.

You've commented here long ago, if memory serves. I'm not wasting my time to find when or where.

I've long said that Gore WILL NOT be running for president. You are way off base saying I wrote what I wrote because he has presidential aspirations. He has too good of a gig as a non-scientist; he's raking in tons of money from his unproven and unscientific alarmist behavior.

Why won't Gore debate any of the scientists - and there are many, hundred and hundreds of them - who are on record as disproving Gore et al alarmist mentality?

Why is Mars having a similar planet warming condition like earth? Are there SUVs on Mars? Who is "polluting" the Martian atmosphere causing (so-called) global warming in the same manner that the Alarmists say is happening on earth?

The entire world is not at stake. Why you choose to believe this pure folly on your part.

I'll have an intelligent debate with you in the future, here in comments, on two conditions. 1) you keep your comments shorter/more brief; 2) Civil debates can take place without name-calling. If one party thinks that they have the winning side of the

argument or issue, they should be able to prove their point(s) with facts rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks.

If you cannot do either of the two conditions, then by all means refute what I write at your blog and your blog only.

ok, I'll play by your rules, but I want you to realize it's a two way deal, those pictures seem like personal attacks to me. You also insulted my gramar (not that it makes my point less valid), saying it was worse then elementary schoolers; well it has only been four years...

But back to the action.

Really? The Earth's orbit is no longer changing? There's no more releases of methane from the oceans? Vocanic eruptions aren't happening any more?

I'm sorry about the comment to which you responded as above, I phrased it rather poorly.

It's not that the Earth's orbit isn't changing, but that any warming due to it has been factored out of the equation, as well as the fact that if it was the cause, it would have to be changing at an astounding rate (which it isn't). In addition, if the Earth's orbit was changing in such a dramatic way, there would be other effects too, not just the warming, things like the path of the sun across the sky, the time it's in the sky, and the way the sun would appear to the scientists studying it.

Then there are the methane releases I mentioned. You asked if there aren't still such releases, well there aren't, thats a simple fact.

The same is true of the volcanic eruptions. I did not mean that there aren't any active volcanoes in the world today, I'm not that stupid. I mean that the massive amount of volcanic activity that puts gases, but not the ash and dust that would relfect solar radiation.

Also, you say that Mars is also warming, well do you know what Mars' atmosphere is made of? CO2, exactly what we're putting into the atmosphere that is warming the planet.

And by the way, the folly is yours. Everything that would come about from positive action would only benefit the world.

"Gore says C02 is the most important greenhouse gas. This is wrong for two reasons," says Dr. Ball. "First, C02 is nowhere near the most important greenhouse gas from a climate perspective. C02 is less than 4% of the greenhouses gases. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume.

"Second, C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet. This point alone is egregious enough to reject the entire movie and Gore's message."

"They are showing [An Inconvenient True] in schools when I would give it an "F" even as a Grade X assignment," says climatologist Ball.

Source: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover080907.htm

"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory."

[...]

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

I reread my above and don't see where I insulted your grammar. I often make errors in comments because I never cut and paste my comments here or other places I leave them, I just free wheel best that I can proofreading as I type, so unless it's exceedindly bad I grant commenters great license for improper grammar or spelling. Anyway ...

At best, at some point you will agree that you agree to disagree with me on this issue, as I will with you - unless you change your mind. If anything, some prevailing mindsets in science, I'm not saying all of them or a great number - but some are saying if anything, we are entering a cooling period.

Well, it's always nice to have a glitch that doesn't save the second part of my comment. Great.

Which independent organization confirmed that all tons of garbage that went into landfills and all the combined total use of petro, gasoline, electricity etc etc etc consumed to "put on the show" is verified as being completely carbon neutral?

You attribute details from the linked Daily Mail story to my writing, calling it "not only wrong, but it is misleading to the maximum." I certainly hope you are applying the same degree of skepticism to what you are being told by the Alarmist and Panic Crowd.

There are more and more people with degrees in climatology, science, etc who are able to support their position that earth warming is not related to human activity. If anything the lack of consensus should simply open up more debate on the subject. But which side wants to shut down debate? Why won't Gore debate anyone who disagrees with him? You still haven't answered that.

Nor am I a mind-reader. What other conclusion can anyone draw when you write the things that caused those periods of warming (changes in the earth's orbit, huge releases of undersea methane deposits, gas from volcanoes) aren't happening now, and the only thing that could be causing this catasrophe is our burning of fossil fuels. You just said those numerated items are not happening now and the only "other thing" that can be respossible for global warming is burning of fossil fuels. Again, I sure hope you're holding the data you embrace to the same standard of skepticism you hold opposing data.

You signed off of your two comments with:

Life itself, not just for you or me, but for the entire world is at stake, at it is worth saving.

And

We weren't meant to live this way.

Don't be including my life in your pessimistic and negative view of the world and nature. There's nothing to sustain your argument. At best, both sides are at a neutral standoff and need to prove their points more solidly than they have before. To rush in without any solid evidence on way or the other - and there is no evidence either way for anyone with objectivity - is a waste of time and money, especially when it intrudes at the hands of government and fraudulent and ersatz scientific research.

CO2 is the most importatn greenhouse gas, because water vapor is natural, and the amount of water vapor in the air is dependent on the temperature. The warmer the air, the greater its capacity to hold water, and the more water, the more humidity and more heat. It's a positive feedback loop. So excluding the water vapor, which we aren't producing in such extremely harmful amounts, CO2 is the most overwhelmingly important gas, 4 out of 5%.

You also noted that CO2 is essential to life on earth. Nobody is saying that we should try to eliminate CO2 entirely, more that we should just bring down the levels to normal. According to the data & scientist you quoted, the average CO2 to be 100ppm over the last 600 million years. That is misleading. The average is high because of several specific areas of dramatic increase in CO2 levels, such as in the late pleistocene. In the last 650 thousand years, the average has been around 250 ppm, with peaks only at 280 ppm (from Vostok station [Petit et al., 1999], and Taylor Dome [Indermühle et al., 2000], and University of Bern).

You also quote how plants are undernourished and don't have nearly enough CO2. I'm curious about this. I'd like to see the study from which this derives (and whether it is peer-reviewed). I'm willing to bet that it's the kind of thing where plants just can't get enough of it (CO2); the more you give them, the more they'll eat, but it isn't like they're dying, at least it sure doesn't look like that to me.

I read the first paragraph of that second link you posted, and it names the theory to be controversial immediatly, so obviously it isn't in any way representing a common scientific mindset.

Next, I do agree to disagree with you, but not for long; eventually you'll see that this is caused by humans.

Where did you get that the world is entering a cooling period? How on earth would anyone come to that conclusion?

Well I'm gonna bet that the company to verify that the concert series was carbon nuetral was the company from which the offsets were purchased.

"The same degree of skepticism to what you are being told by the Alarmist and Panic Crowd." Did you get that from your Mcarthyism buddies?

You're also mistaken that there are a vast number of scientists that disagree with the theory. Between 1994 and 2004, there were 928 scientific peer-reviewed articles dealing with climate change published in scientific journals. Do you know how many of them disagreed that the burning of fossil fuels by humans has driven the warming we are now experiencing? I think you do. 0. Also, James Baker, the Administrator of NOAA, said "There's a better scientific consensus on this than on any issue I know, except maybe Newton's second law of deynamics."

Why won't Gore plan out a debate with one of your "scientists"? well to quote you, "Nor am I a mind reader."

And to the comment which began with that quote, I already explained that it isn't that those things aren't happening, it's that they aren't happening in the way that would cause the massive and almost instant warming we're currently experiencing.

I'm not exactly sure where you got the whole "pessimistic and negative view of the world and nature" bit. Exactly the opposite. What we as humans are doing is awful, but I believe in the most opptomistic way possible that we will fix it. Thinking (knowing, sorry) something is morally wrong isn't being pessimistic.

You also said that at best both sides are at a standoff. That would be an unrealistic 'best' from your point of view. The amount of evidence and credible scientists support the FACT that the climate crisis is caused by humans. Support for "your side" is made up of less credible scientists with controversial theories.

You also make it seem like taking affirmitive action is a bad thing. Not sure where you got that idea. Nothing, literally nothing in any way bad will come about from solving this problem. Less trafic, more abundant wildlife, drastically lower energy bills, cleaner skies, more forests, economic freedom from the Middle East, as well as leading the renewable energy and green movement.

Umm, this is definetly worse for the planet then the plauge. It is virtually destroying ecosystems around the planet.

RE: The quote on plants, its from the source canada free press item. I'm sure there's other resources you could find doing a search on Prof. Timothy Ball, but you probably won't because they disagree with what you've already decided to believe.

Well - do YOU treat what you read from Climgate dot org whatever you link to on your blog - with as great skepticism as you do opposing views? You still haven't answered that.

Do you just cut and paste the talking points from the pro global panic and alarmist crowd? McCarthy tactics? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! That's a hoot! Are you really only 15?

Less credibile scientists make up "my" side of the argument than your "side"? How about ex-IPCC'ers who've defected to the other side because they were told to skew (falsify) their studies in order to promote that research was conclusively on the side supporting global warming.

"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."

Your second paragraph doesn't make any sense, I'd be happy to answer whatever it is that you think I haven't answered, just please clarify what that is.

And yes, I am 15. What of it?

The term climate change is used because it is more accurate and precise than global warming, although both are perfectly true. In essence, it is global warming, however, more goes on than just warming, the climate is actually changing, which is why the term is also used. They're interchangable.

I'm curious, did you only read the article part of that article, because then it quotes a bunch of "my" scientists. And after that it quotes some of the scientists mentioned in the article. Do you realize that they don't give any real reasons? The first one, Dr. Nathan Paldor, gives the same argument, that there have been warming periods in the past. No one ever said there haven't been. But he doesn't say what caused those periods, nor does he mention that those things aren't happening now.

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes says he doesnt like the idea of the climate reacting like a thermostat system. One of the arguments presented by Gore is that it is non-linear, very much unlike a thermostat.

Eugenio Hackbart says that they're are signs of natural warming, yet neglects to mention any of them.

Dr. Marcel Leroux compares non believers to the non Christians of the Inquisition, but nobody is being killed or tortured.

Dr. Tom V. Segalstad's quote doesn't make any sense at all.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter's comment says there is a relation between cosmic radiation and clouds. Duh. That's why some people have proposed creating things to reflect the radiation and thus decrease the warming.

Augusto Mangini just thinks the IPCC is wrong, but fails to mention why.

Dr. George Kukla says some scientists are worried about losing their jobs. Well they can get paid more by oil companies to deny the theory.

Robert Durrenberger gives no reasons why Gore is "misinforming the public."

Dr. Antonio Zichichi also gives no evidence.

Dr. Vincent Gray doesn't seem to like the report, and also gives no reasons.

Dr. Kelvin Kemm isn't a doctor in any climate related fields, in fact, he is a mathematician and a physicist, he doesn't exactly study the climate system very much, unless it's a hobby...

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski thinks the data is wrong, even though it was peer reviewed and collected by very credible scientists like Lonny Tompson and Jim White.

Dr. Ian Plimer blames warming on supernovas and solar radiation, if there was such an increase in solar radiation, there would be other things that would happen as I've said before.

Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen says that the sun is the source of energy that is responsible for the climate, so therefore any change in the sun's energy would aftect Earth's climate. Duh. But that doesn't mean that CO2 can't affect, or doesn't affect the climate as well.

Luc Debontridder says that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but I've already argued that point (and you had nothing to say to my response, what could that mean?) so I won't repeat myself.

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen trys to put blame on the media for damaging children.

And finally, Dr. David Wojick says that only the solar variability theory explains the change in atmospheric temperature, well the "GHG theory" as he puts it, uses solar radiation, heating the atmosphere also, the temperature change monitored since the late 1800s, and scientists have known since this time that increases in GHGs would increase global temperatures.

Whew. Now, let's scroll up and see what else you wrote?

So explain how exactly I'm a fraud? (and what happened to keeping it impersonal?

Yeah, I actually was originally going to add something to that last part of my last post, but then saw that you had replied.

In my opinion (and I know you're gonna give me hell for this) all the other life that will be destroyed by what we're doing outweighs mankind. We aren't any "better" than other forms of life.

But back to people. With only a 3 meter rise in sea level, hundreds of millions (probably billions, but I'm not sure of the exact number) of people would be displaced, throwing the rest of the world into chaos because of all the refugees. There were 250 thousand people displaced by Katrina, and that was a disaster, but we're talking about hundreds of millions or billions of people.

Also, with the increased temperatures, there would be much more extreme drought and water scarcity, making it very difficult (if not impossible) to grow enough food. The world already has this problem, but when we can't grow enough food on a global scale, well, I don't think I have to say much more than that.

There also will be increased flooding, making areas that could be warm/cool enough to grow food incapable of doing such, much less making them hard to live in, and if people do live there, insurance would cost a massive bundle.

Speaking of money, not acting on the climate crisis would cost us (the world) 20% of the global economy, accroding to a report & study by Sir Nicholas Stern.

So I just looked back at my last post, and realized there were several points you neglected to comment on. You didn't re-argue that the planet is going into a global cooling period. You didn't re-argue the undernourished plants topic, and have stopped trying to find fault with Live Earth.And finally, you stopped trying to argue the water vapor point. And all that was just from my last post.

Nope, my name isn't Ryan, and I have no idea who you are. Name's Alex Budd.

He also said : ""Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction."Source: same as above source

There are hundreds more experts who disagree global warming is caused by humans.

The Fraud: I'm not buying the 15-yr old act. Sorry.

What you cite is a pannicky and an alarmist kneejerk reaction.

Oh - I did indeed forget to include some links to global cooling in the last exchange. Here are a few -

the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005. Source: http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp

"evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."Source: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

"Recent magnetic field readings are as low as he’s ever seen, he says, and he’s worked with the instrument for more than 25 years. If the sun remains this quiet for another a year or two, it may indicate the star has entered a downturn that, if history is any precedent, could trigger a planetary cold spell that could bring massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere." - popular mechanics Feb. 2008 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html

I'm not saying I don't believe your side couldn't be right, I'm saying I'm not convinced, it's not worse than the plague or anything remotely like it and debate should continue. In the meantime, do nothing.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,"

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)." Christopher Monckton http://ff.org/centers/csspp/press/20070302_release.html

Damn. My computer sorta crashed right before I was about to post last night, so now I have to do it all over agian.

Evans says that we only have data going back to 1979, which is off by about 20 years

You wanna talk about people who depend on what their scientific opinion is? How about Phillip Cooney? You know, the guy (who doesn't have a scientific degree) who was hired to be a scientific advisor. In his position, he doctored scietific reports to help stir controversy over the climate crisis. After his actions became public, he resigned. In less than a week, he went to work for Exxon-Mobile.

Are these "hundreds more experts who disagree global warming is caused by humans" the same 400 you previously mentioned?

You're "not buying the 15-yr old act"? What does that mean?

What is a pannicky, alarmist kneejerk reaction.

Did you actually read the link from the Climate Data Center? Because even though it is from from the American Conservative Union Foundation, it says that "global warming is likely to continue". Fred Singer, "a well known skeptic on man-made warming" that the cooling from 1998 to 2005 is because of a very warm El Nino in 1998. '“When you start your graph with 1998,” he says, “you will necessarily get a cooling trend.”'

The cooling mentioned between 1940-1965 stems from strong volcanic activity in the period that spewed lots of ash and dust into the air, which then reflected solar radiation, thus decreasing the warming and creating a short period of cooling.

The article also mentions the Medieval and Roman Warming periods. It doesn't say that these periods had signifigantly less warming over a significantly larger time.

I'm wondering if you read any of the articles you quote, since you seem to quote only the sentences that support your argument, and neglect to read and interpert the importance of the entire article. The second acticle says there is global cooling, but it only has recordings in certain places, not global average temperatures. It also implies that increased precipitation means cooling, however, precipitation actually means warming. The recorded cooling is not only recorded in only certain places, but it also is only from one year, which is nowhere near enough to establish a trend.

Hmm. Well I can't argue against your link from Popular Mechanics, because every time I try to put it in the browser, my internet crashes.

How is this not worse than the plague? Explain that to me.

Your last quote is from Christopher Monckton. In the full report he wrote, he trys to not only to discredit non-skeptic scientists, but says they aren't real scientists if they aren't skeptics.

Wow, I didn't notice at first, but your posts have been getting a lot shorter.

Why the hell would you want to drill in Alaska (in the National Artic Wildlife Reserve, I assume) and anywhere else we have oil reserves?

As a civilization, we are either at or past (experts aren't exactly positive) peak oil. Just drilling for more oil only fuels the problem we already find ourselves in. Sooner or later we will have to turn to renewable energies, and doing so now is a MUCH better idea than trying to do so when there isn't any oil left. Not switching to renewables now will only lead to more senseless destruction of the world. Switching would also create TONS of new jobs, and the philosophy of it would only help the world.

Now, I'm not totally sure if you actually meant that, or just didn't know what else to say, but whatever.

Global warming is economic tyranny. It's economic and political terrorism.

Yes, I meant what I wrote. The comments are shorter because, well - do you think that you're going to convince me to change my mind after perhaps, another half-dozen links from you supporting the global alarmist argument?

I think there is ample evidence that there is no consensus on this issue within the circles of highly degreed experts and professionals who continue working to prove their theories on either side(s).

In the meantime, do nothing, except tap and pump that domestic oil.

Peak oil,heh - there's another issue that experts have said at various times in the past fifty years that "we've reached peak oil," and yet new reserves are constantly being found. The objective truth is that no one has any idea if we've reached peak oil. It's probably better to err on side side of caution on this one, but debating that will result in a batch of new counter links which will leaving us agreeing to disagree.

Why are you here commenting? Why are you spending so much time here? Do you think you're going to change my mind based on your comments? Do you believe that perhaps the next three links you list will finally result in me having a V-8 moment where I suddenly reach the conclusion that global warming is real? Are you proselytizing at the comments of other sites? Are you a scientist?

Why haven't you thrown your computer away? You don't really need a computer. Using a computer uses energy, and using energy depletes precious resources. You can live life without a computer and without being online, can't you? Why aren't you lowering your standard of living by not using a computer? Does your household have more than one computer hooked up to theinternet? You don't need two computers, do you? All fair questions, I think.

Global warming is economic tyranny. Agreeing to disagree with you on this is fine with me, but you seem to not want to permit the same courtesy to others.

There is definetly a consensus. You have come up with ~400 scientists. I read one of your articles and found 2,500 scientists. The amount of evidence supporting the facts that global warming is man-made vastly overwhelms the evidence pointing otherwise.

Pump domestic oil? Well at least you're patriotic, sorta...

Peak oil doesn't mean there won't be any more oil found, rather that the total amount of accessible oil left is less than 50% of what it was pre-industrial revolution. If you think it's better to err on the side of caution of peak oil, then why would you think any differently about global warming?

Ditto on all those questions.

Again, explain the tyranny part to me.

I've said it before (scroll up and check) I'm fine agreeing to disagree, and you're just as much at fault as I am for any offense you're taking.

Global warming is economic tyranny. You know what those terms means. Onerous taxes placed upon the idea that a carbon tax or carbon offset must be instituted.

My points are shorter because, as I asked and you didn't answer, how many go arounds do you expect to go? It was not now until I realized you knew the meaning of "agreeing to disagree." Why didn't you just say so earlier on instead of proselytizing?

I have no idea, at all, what you mean by the last half of your final sentence regarding "offense."

You're right, I do know what those terms mean, that's why I'm confused, because it is no such thing.

Do you even understand fully how the proposed system would work? It's not like you would just have to pay a federal tax for all the energy you use; it's much more complicated than that. Many plans would swap it for the income tax we now have. Part of it would be the cap and trade system, in which people buy carbon credits, which allow them to emit a certain amount of CO2 before a fine is enforced. Many experts agree that a carbon tax is the best way to combat emmissions and thus the climate crisis.

And besides, this country needs taxes now, or our debt will just get worse and future generations will have to pay the price.

I did say that I could agree to disagree earlier, but it didn't seem to matter to you.

The offense part was in reference to your previous post, "Agreeing to disagree with you on this is fine with me, but you seem to not want to permit the same courtesy to others."

The plan you advocate is a tax based on specious research. If you want to contribute your money to it, fine, but to implement a mandatory tax is silly.

This is why I don't believe that you believe what you're saying here in these comments. I think you just get your kicks making outrageous statements such as "the country needs taxes now." That's a stupid statement to make. I'm not saying you're stupid, but the statement sure is.

I'm glad we agree to disagree. You certainly did seem to not want to allow that option.

Hey, did you see how Gore doesn't want to push his eco-beliefs onto his rich friends:

And did some scientist recently leave/defect from the UN climate panel and is making the charge that global warming is a hoax? I can't find anything on that but I'm sure I heard that somewhere. Maybe I bookmarked it and can't find it. I'll look for it later.

The last comment I received from you was 4/25/08 and I published it - as I published every other comment you've submitted - and hadn't heard from you since. I certainly didn't miss not hearing from you and your subjective and unproven alarmist global warming propaganda.

BTW - I publish my posts, comments, and responses to my comments at a schedule and timetable that's convenient to me, not you - not anyone else.

Scroll to the bottom of my page and please refresh yourself with my comments policy. Neither you or anyone else is ENTITLED to a forum here. You have your own blog and have done little with it. Perhaps you should concentrate more on that in getting your message out instead of pushing "attitude" onto others.

Sorry about that, misunderstanding. I had typed up a response after your previous post, but I guess I didn't actually hit publish like I thought I did.

Well back to the action then.

The tax plan I advocate is based on research, but not specious research. It is based on the research of both scientists and thousands of economists. This tax isn't silly, it is in fact more than necesary.

I get my kicks out of outrageous statements? I have a few words for you: "Albert (Global Warming Alarmist) Gore Jr." or "Obamalith", "Ted Kennedy's Poodle" (wtf on that one by the way) or "uberliberals". What outrageous statements have I made? Everything I've said is truthful.

I've allowed you the option to disagree from the very start; scroll up and see.

I read the article, did you? Cause he isn't saying rich people shouldn't do things too, rather he is being impersonal, and that's his policy, which he has always followed.

I also read the article about sunspots, again I have to ask, did you? Because if so you would realize that the cooling data is only from one year (not nearly enough to theorize a trend), and only from certain places, and that there is no proven corolation at all between the two. It's like saying that because there was an earthquake that killed people in China, earthquakes only kill chinese people.

You may have heard that about the scientists...Did you know that millions of people don't believe the Holocaust ever happened? Imagine that...

I don't need to defend myself for what I write on my blog RE: Gore Alarmist, etc. If you don't like it and have no sense of humor, don't read my blog. It's that simple.

If you're siding with the global warming crowd based on the number of people who advocate it (your last sentence) - then you're probably one of the many who would have firmly held to the belief that the earth was flat and that our universe revolved around the earth (not the sun) because "that's what the majority believed."

I like how you've never bothered to answer the questions posed to you several comments ago about your own and your family use of energy. How many computers do you have? How many television sets? How many big screen plasma TVs? You don't need those things, but yet you probably have them. You're a hypocrite.

Instead of building your own blog and spreading whatever message you want to on it, you continue to come here and spew your silly 15-year old illogic. (Again, that is if you're really 15, which I don't buy). I think you just like wasting people's time.

Some blogs close comments after a period of time - unfortunately Blogger does not yet have this option. This is the end of my back and forth with you on this subject.

If you really, truly don't like what you read here, don't read my blog or better yet refute it on your own blog.